Brink of Complexity
brink.0x3f at gmail.com
Sat May 5 00:03:31 UTC 2012
I think we're too quick to label sincere discussion of community standards as "Drama", when obviously such discussion is completely necessary in a place with no explicit rules beyond "Be excellent to each other".
As far as I can tell, the structure of Noisebridge is such to encourage hacking of the space culture *itself*, and such hackery is going to involve a whole lot of talking things out.
This discussion *is* a collaborative creative process. Discussion is constructive, and should be encouraged. Vigilantism is oppressive, and should be discussed.
On May 4, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Jehan Tremback wrote:
> Sounds like a great model, but we need actual criteria, not vigilantes calling the cops on people they don't like.
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Martin Bogomolni <martinbogo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yep, and that's pretty much the ATX Hackerspace model.. and we're at
> 100+ members and up to tons of productive and fun stuff, so
> something's Going Right(tm).
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:49 PM, David Rorex <drorex at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wouldn't say AMT is a private club, to my knowledge up to this point
> > nobody who wanted to visit has ever been turned away, and nobody who wanted
> > to become a member has ever been rejected. However the policy is such that
> > non-members are only allowed inside when members are around, and the only
> > way to get a key is to become a member. Also we specifically state that all
> > of our events are open to the public and non members are welcome. Our
> > mission statement is specifically to focus on hacking/making/building/
> > arting, and not consensus/anarchy/extreme inclusion/politics/whatever.
> > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:11 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
> >> The circumstance at 83c was similar to 2169: a door
> >> that is locked and people inside who pretty much let
> >> in anyone who knocked.
> >> As I understand things, The discussions people had
> >> in the planning phase included an acknowledgement of a
> >> publicly open place and its foreseeable problems.
> >> Note that AMTD is pretty much a private club, and
> >> deliberately so to test a model different from
> >> Noisebridge's.
> >> On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 13:25 -0700, Martin Bogomolni wrote:
> >> > Jim,
> >> >
> >> > Originally, that was _not_ the case. There was a door, and to get in
> >> > you needed a key for that door. The key was given to you _after_ you
> >> > had petitioned for membership in The Book, and consensus was achieved
> >> > for your induction.
> >> >
> >> > You could, of course, let someone in if you had a key... and if you
> >> > knocked on the door, if someone let you into the shop, you were
> >> > responsible for having let them in. There was no "open door"
> >> > policy.. the lock was locked.
> >> >
> >> > We have a very permeable "door" at the moment, and there are
> >> > non-keyholders inside the space who will let other non-keyholders in.
> >> > Yes, this was -possible- at the old 83c space, but it generally
> >> > wasn't an issue since it was a very small space and a fairly tight
> >> > community.
> >> >
> >> > -M
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > My understanding is that the original concept
> >> > > of Noisebridge was to be open to the public.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss